Why do tech titans keep trying to ‘kill’ the smartphone?

Keith Shaw: People have been predicting the death of the smartphone for at least eight years now—if not longer. But everywhere you go, that's all you see these days.

Now, folks like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and even Bill Gates are trying to sell us on what's next—which also means the supposed death of the smartphone. So what's going on here? We're going to chat with our favorite smartphone and AR/VR expert on this episode of Today in Tech.

Keith: Hi everybody.

Welcome to Today in Tech. I'm Keith Shaw. Joining me on the show today is Ramon Llamas. He is the Research Director of Mobile Devices and AR/VR at IDC. Welcome back, Ramon. We've had you on the show several times. Ramon Llamas: Great to be back.

Keith: So again, while doing research for this episode, I came across a Business Insider article from 2017—that's where I got this "eight years" thing. I'm sure people were predicting the death of the smartphone even before that. But in recent weeks, I’ve seen a bunch of articles.

Mark Zuckerberg was on a podcast. Elon Musk continues to talk about Neuralink. And even Bill Gates is talking about the death of the smartphone and the rise of things like electronic tattoos. Sam Altman’s been mentioned. The only person not talking about it?

Tim Cook—or if he is, he's saying, “No, no, the smartphone is great.” So why are we hearing this now? What’s your take? Let’s not go through all your thoughts at once—we’ve got a lot to unpack. Ramon: Sure, sure. But it's fascinating, right?

All these visionaries—big names—are saying the smartphone’s time is up. But look closer. What do they have in their back pocket? Something to replace it. We’ve heard all kinds of options: glasses, ambient computing, wearable devices, even tattoos. Some ideas are fantastic—some sound pretty crazy. Tattoos? Really?

Can you imagine walking down the street and seeing someone gesturing to a tattoo or tapping glasses? It’s not that different from what we do now, walking around staring at our screens. So is it crazy? No. Is it immediate? Also no.

There's a big gap between now and the next stage—one that requires breakthroughs and innovation. Keith: What always jumps out at me when people declare "the smartphone is dead" is — who's saying it? Every single one of them has something else to sell.

It’s the same thing we saw with AI. Everyone hyping AI had a platform or tool behind it. It’s no different with these newer technologies. They're pitching. That’s why I look to analysts, authors, and academics — the more neutral folks — and ask: What’s really going on?

What do the numbers say? Ramon: Exactly. So let’s go back for a second. For over 12 years, we’ve seen around 1.2 billion smartphones ship every single year. Sure, we’ve had dips—especially during COVID—but the last year or two? We’re not seeing double-digit growth, but we’re still seeing growth.

And with billions of units and trillions of dollars, even single-digit growth is huge. We're still expecting more than a billion units to ship this year. We can talk about tariffs and other factors, but we're talking about an industry moving billions of devices annually.

And to quote a friend of mine quoting someone else: "From my cold, dead hands will you get my smartphone." That pretty much sums it up. The smartphone isn’t going anywhere. Other devices have come and gone—and haven’t made a dent.

The other thing that stands out to me—we haven’t come to a consensus about what the replacement is. If 10 major tech leaders came out tomorrow and said, "It’s going to be a smart pen," and they all released one—okay, maybe we’d believe it. But right now?

We can’t even agree. Is it glasses? Is it AR glasses? Is it earbuds with voice control and AI? Maybe. But they still depend on the smartphone. Keith: Yeah. I’ve been using my AirPods Pro—especially with the hearing aid capability.

I've got some mild hearing loss, so I put them in and boom—the room gets louder. But sometimes it’s too loud, so I have to adjust. But I can see the health benefits. And if you tie in something like “Ask Siri,” maybe you have a whole system.

But Siri still isn’t great. Apple hasn’t solved that yet. So the idea of a fully AI-powered earbud isn’t quite there. Ramon: And still—it depends on your smartphone. That’s the central point. The computing? Still on the phone. The connectivity? Still on the phone.

At best, these devices give you partial experiences. Earbuds can’t deliver the full visual component. They offer audio, maybe some health monitoring—but it’s limited. Samsung tried something like this years ago—earbuds with built-in fitness tracking. Maybe we’ll see that again. But it’s not a replacement—it’s an accessory.

Keith: So you're not convinced about earware being a full replacement? Ramon: No, not entirely. But what about something bigger—like headphones with built-in computing? People wouldn’t blink if you walked down the street wearing headphones. Remember when AirPods first came out in 2016?

People thought they looked weird—like bugs in your ears. But now? Totally normal. There’s a level of social acceptance now. Earbuds, headphones—they're everywhere. The audio experience is becoming normalized. But again—it all runs through your phone. Keith: All right—so let’s move from ears to eyes.

What about these Meta Ray-Ban AR glasses? They’re integrating Meta AI, you can talk to them, get responses. You can record and take pictures. But again—you have to go back to your smartphone to use most of the features. Do we even call these AR glasses?

They don’t have a screen or visual projection. Ramon: Technically no—since there’s no display. They’re more like advanced Snap Spectacles. They record and snap pics, but you won’t see anything on the glasses themselves.

When you start talking about actual screens in your eyes—Google Glass, AR overlays, full VR goggles—it gets complicated. And honestly? I don’t want stuff on my eyes. The beauty of the smartphone is mobility. You can walk, run, work out with it. Not true for headsets or goggles.

Keith: So you’re saying smart glasses aren’t ready yet? Ramon: I think they hold the most promise—more than anything else we’ve talked about. You’ve got audio built into the stems, visual potential is coming, and voice interactions are getting faster and more contextual.

But we’re still limited by things like battery life. Ray-Ban Meta glasses get about 4–6 hours. Not bad, but not great either. Apple Vision Pro? Meta Quest 3? Those headsets last 2–3 hours. And that’s for entertainment—you’re not walking around the city wearing those.

Smart glasses might stretch their runtime to 7–8 hours with limited use, but full-day functionality? Still not there. Keith: I like that the smartphone is a general-purpose device. I made a list recently: phone calls, texts, social media, games, calculator, alarm, GPS, music, video, camera—that’s just the start.

Any “smartphone killer” would have to do all those things too. And I haven’t seen any glasses that can wake me up in the morning. I’m not wearing glasses in bed. Maybe the smartwatch gets us a little closer? Ramon: Maybe.

But here’s the thing—it doesn’t need to do all those things. It just has to do the important ones really well. And, most importantly, it has to do something the smartphone can’t. Take smartwatches, for example. The early Apple Watch was basically a tiny iPhone on your wrist.

But once Apple added health and fitness tracking—stuff your phone can’t do—that’s when it clicked. Closing rings became a thing. Keith: I didn’t really get into that. My Apple Watch was a hand-me-down and I just don’t like wearing watches. I’ll check the time on my phone. Ramon: Totally fair.

I’m wearing a Pixel Watch 3 right now—based on Fitbit tech. It tracks my health and steps, and that’s important to me. And my phone doesn’t do that quite the same way. Keith: So yeah—if a new device can offer something unique the smartphone can’t, then it has a chance.

Ramon: You want a good example? Smart glasses with “see what I see” capabilities. Hands-free video calls. That’s something phones can’t easily replicate. Keith: That’s a great point.

Like, if I’m fixing my kid’s bike and I can call the neighborhood expert and show him what I’m doing—without having to hold up a phone—that’s a game-changer. Ramon: Exactly. That whole “shared view” experience is something phones can’t really do.

In business, that’s already being applied—field techs, manufacturing, remote assistance. You might not see it as a consumer, but companies are using smart glasses in real deployments. Keith: That reminds me of one feature I’d love.

You’re at a conference or event, and you see someone you know—but you can’t remember their name. What if your glasses could use facial recognition and whisper their name to you in your ear? I would pay for that. Ramon: It’s possible—and useful, especially for business professionals.

But now you’re stepping into “creepy” territory. Facial recognition on demand raises major privacy questions. Keith: True. But another use case—real-time translation. Imagine you're in a foreign country, talking to someone, and your glasses are translating everything in your ear—or showing subtitles. It’s like the Babel fish from Hitchhiker's Guide.

Way less awkward than pulling out your phone. Ramon: Yeah, and companies like Google are definitely working on that. We’ve seen demos at Google I/O—kids from different countries passing phones back and forth. Eventually, that tech will go into glasses.

The audio part is there; the visual display is the next hurdle. Keith: Plus turn-by-turn walking directions. You wouldn’t look like a lost tourist staring at your phone—you’d just walk naturally. Americans would still stand out, though. Ramon: For sure. Okay, so we’ve covered the ears, the eyes...

what about the brain? Neuralink? Embedded chips? Is that too cyberpunk? Keith: Way too far for me. I don’t even like shots. Ramon: Same here. There’s too much risk and not enough reward right now. Neuralink has shown potential for helping people with disabilities, and that’s great. But mass adoption?

Not anytime soon. Keith: It’s also creepy. We’ve barely gotten past fears of phones causing brain cancer. Now you want to implant one? Ramon: Exactly. Power supply, biocompatibility, wireless connections—all huge challenges. And while Elon Musk is pushing boundaries, most of us aren’t ready to take that leap.

Keith: Let’s bring it back down to Earth—AI pins and wearable badges. Remember those Star Trek-style buttons? They got a lot of hype, but ultimately didn’t catch on. Ramon: Yeah, they were interesting experiments.

Some even worked without a phone—connected via a T-Mobile SIM and used AI for scheduling and text reading. But they were mostly showcases. You’ll probably see pieces of that tech show up in other devices—phones, glasses, whatever comes next.

Keith: I still think AI is going to be integrated into existing devices. Phones will do more of the AI processing locally, not in the cloud. But we’re not there yet. Ramon: Right. A lot of the “AI in phones” we see now is gimmicky—like generating cartoon emojis.

Not worth the price tag. Keith: And every time someone says, “This is going to die”—whether it’s the smartphone, the PC, the mainframe—I just roll my eyes. People still use paper. They still use radios. They still use PCs and mainframes.

Ramon: But there’s also a graveyard of dead devices: MP3 players, standalone GPS units, Walkmans, even alarm clocks. Some come back—like vinyl—but most don’t. Keith: True. But the point is—just because something new comes along doesn’t mean the old thing dies. It evolves.

Like doing taxes—you used to have to go into an office. Now it’s all e-signatures and online portals. Ramon: Exactly. Evolution, not elimination. And many of these “old” devices get absorbed into something new—like how smartphones absorbed MP3 players, cameras, and more. Keith: So let’s flip it a bit.

While we’ve defended smartphones for a while, let’s talk about where they fall short. Has the innovation really slowed down? Ramon: I think so. If you look at a smartphone today, it looks a lot like one from three or four years ago—rectangular black slab.

We’ve had some attempts at new form factors—foldables, flexible screens—but nothing has broken through on a mass level yet. Keith: And innovation used to be more obvious—flip phones, slide phones, keyboard phones. Now it’s just specs getting a little better each year. Ramon: Right.

And from a manufacturing perspective, a single screen slab is cheaper and easier to produce. And most consumers say: “Just give me a bigger screen.” That’s why foldables exist—to give you tablet space in a pocket-sized device. Keith: But they’re expensive. $1,500 to $1,800 is a lot.

Are people even upgrading their phones as often as they used to? Ramon: No. The upgrade cycle has stretched. It used to be every two years. Now it’s more like every three and a half. People hold on to their phones until the battery dies or something breaks.

And phones are durable now—they’re built to last. Keith: I’m using an iPhone 13—it works fine. My director over there upgrades only every five years. And that’s becoming the norm. Ramon: Exactly. People upgrade less frequently, which creates a challenge for manufacturers.

That’s why they need to innovate more—new features, new designs, or new services—to entice upgrades. Keith: But I haven’t seen that much hype around the iPhone 16. It feels like Apple is coasting a bit. Ramon: There’s been a delay on the “Apple Intelligence” features.

People are still on a waitlist. Maybe they’ll get it right with the iPhone 17. But even small changes—like Apple building its own modem—are significant on the back end. Keith: They replaced third-party modems in the 16E, right?

That might not excite consumers, but it saves Apple a lot of money. Ramon: Exactly. It’s strategic. Fewer suppliers, more control, more profit. Keith: Do you think Apple will ever blow us away again? With AI, for instance? Ramon: I wouldn’t count them out.

Apple has a track record of waiting until tech matures, then perfecting it. Maybe not on the first version—but by the third or fourth, they usually get it right. Keith: So you’re saying don’t buy the 16—wait for the 18? Ramon: That’s my advice.

I never buy version one of anything. Keith: Fair enough. Final question—do you think the smartphone will ever truly be replaced? Ramon: No. I think it will become more connected, more integrated with other devices. It will act as the hub—linking to glasses, watches, earbuds, your car, even your home.

But that core experience—the power of a computer in your pocket—that’s not going away anytime soon. Keith: I agree. People always leave the house with three things: keys, wallet, phone. And now the phone is becoming the wallet. Soon it might replace the keys too. Ramon: Exactly.

The smartphone isn’t going to die—it’s going to evolve and become even more central to how we live. Keith: All right. That’s going to do it for this week’s episode. Ramon Llamas, always a pleasure. Thanks for being here. Ramon: Thanks, Keith. Always a great discussion.

Keith: If you enjoyed this conversation, hit like, subscribe, and leave a comment. Join us every week for new episodes of Today in Tech. I’m Keith Shaw, thanks for watching.